[Federal Register: May 12, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 25469-25474]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12my03-121]
Download:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Tech-Prep Demonstration Program
AGENCY: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of final requirements, final priorities and final
selection criteria for new awards in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and
subsequent years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education
announces requirements, priorities, and selection criteria under the
Tech-Prep Demonstration Program (TPDP). The Assistant Secretary will
use these requirements, priorities, and selection criteria for new
awards made in FY 2003, and may use them in later years. We intend
these requirements, priorities, and selection criteria to support the
four basic education reform principles underlying the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): Stronger accountability for results,
increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents,
and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work. We
take this action to clarify the Department's expectations regarding
this program, so that TPDP-funded projects will help students, schools,
and teachers in their efforts to improve student achievement, meet high
standards for high school graduation, and increase transition and
persistence rates in postsecondary education.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These requirements, priorities and selection criteria
are effective June 11, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Stratman Clark, U.S. Department
of Education, OVAE, MES Room 5223, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington
DC 20202-7100. Telephone: (202) 205-3779 or via Internet:
karen.clark@ed.gov. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final notice establishes program
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria for the TPDP, which is
authorized by section 207 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and
Technical Education Act of 1998 (Perkins III). TPDP provides grants to
consortia to carry out tech-prep education projects
[[Page 25470]]
that involve the location of a secondary school on the site of a
community college, a business as a member of the consortium, and the
voluntary participation of secondary school students. We intend to fund
projects that, following an initial recruitment period, will enroll a
new student cohort in each year of the project, in addition to
continuing support for each previous TPDP student cohort.
We published a notice of proposed requirements, proposed priorities
and proposed selection criteria in the Federal Register on Friday,
January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3517). In that notice, we discussed (on pages
3517 though 3519) the proposed requirements, priorities, and selection
criteria for this year's TPDP competition and subsequent competitions.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed
requirements, proposed priorities, and proposed selection criteria, six
parties submitted comments. An analysis of the comments, and of any
changes made as a result of comments submitted, follows.
We have grouped major issues by subject. Generally, we do not
address technical or other minor, non-substantive changes, or suggested
changes, which the applicable statutory authority does not authorize us
to make. Specifically, we have made technical changes to Priority 3 to
clarify when we will award points for this priority.
Project Period
Comment: Three commenters were concerned with the proposal to
extend the TPDP project period from three to five years. They expressed
concern that this extension of the project period, coupled with the
plan to fund the entire grant award from FY 2002 funds, would reduce
the amount of funds available per year and reduce the number of grants
to be funded.
Discussion: The decision to extend the project period from three to
five years is based on a number of factors. By statutory definition,
under section 202(a)(3) of Perkins III, tech-prep programs combine at
least two years of secondary education with a minimum of two years of
postsecondary education in a nonduplicative, sequential course of
study. Federal funding of three-year projects under the first TPDP
competition was not intended to support entire four-year tech-prep
projects. With an expanded five-year project period, grantees will have
both a lengthy tech-prep recruitment phase, and sufficient time for the
first cohort of students to complete the entire four-year tech-prep
program. Furthermore, five-year funding will allow the grantees funded
under this year's competition and the Department to fully evaluate the
effectiveness of the funded projects. The Department believes the
estimated average size of awards accurately reflects what are likely to
be relatively low costs of the first year's recruitment efforts, as
well as costs associated with the four-year instructional program.
While the expanded project period may serve to reduce the number of
grants to be awarded, the Department believes that funding fewer
projects to implement complete tech-prep programs serving significant
numbers of students is preferable to funding a greater number of
projects that would implement only partial tech-prep programs. However,
regarding the estimated amount of funds available per year, the
Department has also decided to use both the FY 2002 and the FY 2003
TPDP appropriations for this year's competition, which will serve to
almost double the estimated amount of TPDP funds available for grant
awards. See the ``Estimated Available Funds'' section in the notice
inviting applications published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
Changes: None.
Assurance Regarding Start of Classes
Comment: Three commenters were concerned with the proposed grant
schedule. If TPDP grants were to be awarded in August of 2003, the
commenters were concerned that grantees would have insufficient time to
launch their projects by September of 2003.
Discussion: Requirement 3 states that successful applicants must
enroll the first student cohort and must begin classes ``no later than
September of the calendar year after the year in which the grant award
is made.'' For this year's competition, this would mean September of
2004. This proposed time frame will allow funded projects a full year's
time to recruit their first cohort of students and begin classes by
September of 2004. Indeed, as is discussed in response to an earlier
comment, providing sufficient recruitment time was one of the reasons
we proposed to expand the project period.
Changes: None.
Full-Time Enrollment Requirement
Comment: Three commenters were concerned about the requirement that
eligible applicants enroll students full time in the program. They
argued that this ``guideline'' would eliminate applicants with part-
time programs from the applicant pool as well as significantly expand
the scope of the currently funded TPDP projects.
Discussion: The requirement for full-time enrollment is based on
the statutory language in section 207 of Perkins III, which
specifically requires that funds be used to ``enable eligible consortia
to carry out tech-prep education projects that involve the location of
a secondary school on the site of a community college.'' For purposes
of the TPDP program, the Department does not consider part-time
programs to be ``secondary schools'' and has concluded that the full-
time enrollment requirement is necessary in order to fund programs
under this competition that meet fully the intent of section 207. This
will not, however, alter the scope of currently funded TPDP projects.
Rather, it applies only to new projects funded under this year's
competition and perhaps in future competitions.
Changes: None.
Evaluation Requirement
Comment: One commenter recommended enhancing the program evaluation
and outcomes assessment.
Discussion: The Department believes that the TPDP evaluation
requirement, which is now more rigorous than that in the first TPDP
competition, is sufficient for the program. The evaluation requirement
now provides that a funded TPDP project must use an experimental or
quasi-experimental design in the evaluation of the project. It further
stipulates that funded TPDP projects also must carry out an evaluation
to determine the impact of the project on a comprehensive set of
student outcomes, including academic and technical skills achievement,
high school graduation, enrollment and completion of postsecondary
education, postsecondary remedial coursework, and labor market entry.
Change: None.
Comment: Three commenters were concerned about the proposed data
reporting requirements regarding postsecondary persistence and
completion, and labor market entry. They felt that greater resources
should be allocated to support this data collection effort.
Discussion: The Department recognizes that by undertaking this data
collection and reporting effort, some projects may incur additional
costs. Consequently, the projected range of awards has been increased
from the last competition.
Changes: None.
[[Page 25471]]
Proposed Priority 1--Highly Qualified Teachers
Comment: Three commenters were concerned that, as proposed,
Priority 1 would require community colleges seeking TPDP funds to meet
the teacher quality standards of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA), as amended by the NCLB, Federal legislation that does not
govern postsecondary institutions. They believed the use of this
proposed priority would extend NCLB into an inappropriate arena.
Discussion: By its nature, the TPDP is a collaborative effort
between secondary and postsecondary education. For this reason, it is
appropriate to include priorities that reflect the focus of NCLB with
respect to a component of a TPDP project taught by a secondary teacher.
Our examination of currently funded TPDP projects revealed two
different models for providing core academic classes--one in which
secondary teachers taught core academic classes on the campus of the
community college and another in which postsecondary instructors taught
core academic classes for dual high school and community college
credit. However, as it was not the Department's intent to expand the
applicability of NCLB's provisions beyond elementary and secondary
education and into the arena of community college hiring, the proposed
priority has been revised.
Change: Under Priority 1 as revised, we will give competitive
preference by awarding up to five additional points to applications
that: (a) Require all secondary teachers teaching core academic
subjects to be highly qualified, as such term is defined by section
9101(23) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB; and (b) require all
postsecondary teachers teaching core academic subjects to meet State
standards for community college faculty.
Eligibility Requirements
Comment: One commenter urged the Department to allow technical
centers to apply for TPDP funding. This individual believed that
technical centers have both the resources and the expertise to house a
successful tech-prep high school.
Discussion: Section 207 provides that funds are to be used to
``enable eligible consortia to carry out tech-prep education projects
that involve the location of a secondary school on the site of a
community college.'' In light of this statutory requirement, a
technical center that serves students on a full-time basis may be a
TPDP site only if it is located on the campus of a community college.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that community colleges play a
greater role in tech-prep programs.
Discussion: The TPDP already places community colleges in a pivotal
role in the development and implementation of tech-prep programs, given
that the statute requires eligible consortia to implement tech-prep
education projects that involve the location of a secondary school on
the site of a community college.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that community-based
organizations (CBOs) be encouraged to play a greater role in tech-prep
programs.
Discussion: While section 207 does not identify CBOs as required
members of eligible consortia, it does not preclude their
participation. Thus, CBOs are eligible for consortium membership, or
may serve some other function in a TPDP project, should an applicant
choose to include them.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter thought that four-year colleges and
universities should be involved in tech-prep curriculum reform efforts.
Discussion: Under the provisions of section 207(d), tech-prep
articulation agreements with four-year institutions cannot be supported
with TPDP funds. However, section 207 does not preclude the
participation of four-year colleges and universities in a TPDP project.
They are eligible for consortium membership if an applicant chooses to
include them, and they can participate in curriculum reform efforts
within the context of the TPDP project.
Change: A change has been made. For information purposes,
``Allowable Costs'' and ``Unallowable Costs'' sections have been added
to this notice immediately following the ``Requirements'' section.
These sections indicate, among other things, that articulation
agreements with four-year institutions cannot be funded under the TPDP
and discuss the allowability of several other types of costs about
which we frequently receive questions.
Comment: One commenter recommended that one of the required
partners in the grant application be a tech-prep consortium.
Discussion: The requirements for membership in a TPDP consortium
are taken from the statutory language in section 204(a) and section
207(b) of Perkins III. A tech-prep consortium under section 204, which
receives funds under the State Tech-Prep Education Program, would not
necessarily be eligible for funding under the TPDP because section 204
does not require inclusion of a business member. In contrast, section
207 specifically states that TPDP funds may only be awarded to a
consortium that includes a business member.
Change: None.
Academic Preparation for Postsecondary Education
Comments: One commenter stated that tech-prep programs should be
academically rigorous in order to support the transition from high
school to college for more students, and that tech-prep programs should
avoid tracking and serve a diverse student population. The commenter
also recommended that recruitment and retention strategies be geared
toward minority students.
Discussion: All students participating in TPDP projects should be
expected to meet or exceed State academic standards and to enroll in
postsecondary education. This expectation is reflected in the ``Project
Design'' and ``Project Evaluation'' selection criteria. As to the
commenter's recommendations that TPDP recruitment and retention
strategies be geared toward minority students, the TPDP has several
provisions related to special populations aimed at assisting students
to overcome barriers that might interfere with recruitment or
retention, or otherwise prevent them from succeeding in a TPDP project.
While minority students are not necessarily special population
students, minority students would be included in the definition of
``special populations'' to the extent that they are economically
disadvantaged or single parents, face other barriers to educational
achievement, including limited English proficiency, or otherwise meet
the definition of ``special populations'' in section 3(23) of Perkins
III. There are already several criteria factors in this notice that are
intended to address the needs of all special population students. In
addition, section 207(d)(3) of Perkins III requires the Secretary to
give ``special consideration'' to consortia submitting applications
that meet the requirements of paragraphs (1), (3), (4), and (5) of
section 205(d). Specifically, section 205(d)(3) addresses dropout
prevention and the needs of special populations. Also, section
205(d)(5) addresses how tech-prep programs will help students meet high
academic and employability competencies. In order to more fully
implement the statutory requirement that special consideration be
provided
[[Page 25472]]
to certain applications--including applications addressing dropout
prevention and special populations--and in response to this comment, in
addition to the points to be awarded to applicants based on the
selection criteria and Priorities 1-3, the Department will award five
additional points to applications that address, among other things,
dropout prevention and the needs of special population students. Also,
in response to the commenter's additional concerns, we note that in
section 204(c)(5) of Perkins III, recruitment and counseling activities
are stated to be key tech-prep components that must be geared to
meeting the needs of participating students.
Changes: A change has been made. A ``Special Considerations''
section has been added to this notice, immediately before the
``Selection Criteria'' section, wherein we state that, in addition to
the points to be awarded to applicants based on the selection criteria
and Priorities 1-3, the Department will award five additional points to
applications that: (1) Provide for effective employment placement
activities; (2) Effectively address the issues of school dropout
prevention and reentry, as well as the needs of special populations;
(3) Provide education and training in career areas or skills in which
there are significant workforce shortages, including the information
technology industry; and (4) Demonstrate how tech-prep programs will
help students meet high academic and employability competencies.
Uses of Funds
Comment: One commenter requested funds to survey workplace
literacy, English as a Second Language (ESL), General Educational
Development (GED), and basic education programs in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
Discussion: Since the programs identified appear to be adult
literacy programs rather than tech-prep education programs, the
proposed activity would not be allowable under TPDP.
Change: None.
Project Period
We have concluded that funding multi-year projects for a project
period of five years entirely from the FY 2002 and FY 2003
appropriations is necessary for TPDP grantees to meet fully the
statutory purposes of section 207 and the requirements of this notice.
Such a funding arrangement will enable projects to engage in an
adequate recruitment effort to meet their enrollment goals, and to
implement both the full, two-year secondary component and the full,
two-year postsecondary component of the TPDP project for the first
student cohort during the grant award period.
Requirements
To achieve the purposes of section 207 of Perkins III, we establish
the following requirements. These requirements will apply to all
applicants seeking funding under this competition.
(1) Each applicant must submit a signed Consortium Agreement
(Agreement), providing evidence that each of the categories of
membership required under section 207 has been satisfied, and that each
of the required members is eligible for membership under the provisions
of Perkins III. The Agreement must contain a signature of commitment
from any participating secondary school, community college, and
business member, affirming that those entities have formed a consortium
to develop, implement, and sustain a TPDP project as described under
section 207 of Perkins III. The Agreement also must describe the roles
and responsibilities of each consortium member within the proposed
project. The format for the Agreement will be included in the
application package.
(2) Each applicant must submit enrollment goals for the number of
students in each student cohort to be enrolled in each year of the TPDP
project.
(3) Each applicant must provide an assurance that it will enroll
its first student cohort and begin classes no later than September of
the calendar year after the year in which the grant award is made, and
enroll its second, third, and fourth student cohorts by September of
each subsequent year of the proposed project.
(4) Each applicant must submit a complete Proposed Project Course
Sequence Plan (Plan) to demonstrate how the proposed instructional
program represents a sequential, four-year program of study that meets
the specific criteria set forth in sections 202(a)(3) and 204(c) of
Perkins III. The Plan must list the course sequences for each program
of study within the proposed TPDP project, describing the specific
academic and technical coursework required for all four years of the
program. The Plan also must summarize program entrance requirements and
specify the associate degree or postsecondary certificate to be earned
upon completion of the program. The format for the Plan will be
included in the application package.
(5) Each TPDP-funded project must involve a secondary school
physically located on the site of a community college and provide a
complete program of academic and technical coursework at the community
college that, at a minimum, meets State requirements for high school
graduation. Students must be enrolled full-time in the high school on
the community college campus. However, enrolled students may
participate in extracurricular activities at their original high
school. Proposed projects that involve only the ``virtual'' location of
a secondary school on the site of a community college, and projects
that involve only satellite community college sites located on the
premises of secondary schools, are not eligible for support under this
competition.
(6) Each TPDP-funded project must carry out an evaluation to
determine the impact of the project on a comprehensive set of student
outcomes, including: Academic and technical skills achievement; high
school graduation; enrollment and completion of postsecondary
education; postsecondary remedial coursework; labor market entry; and,
to the extent feasible, earnings or earnings increase after program
completion. In conducting this evaluation, each TPDP project must use
either an experimental design, in which students are randomly assigned
to the demonstration program or another program, or a quasi-
experimental design, in which each program participant is matched with
a non-participant possessing similar pre-program characteristics, such
as test scores on State academic assessments, grade point average,
class rank, technical coursework or course of study, and socioeconomic
status.
(7) Each TPDP project must submit annual reports of anticipated
enrollment. The reports of anticipated enrollment must include the
number of students in each cohort enrolled for the coming year and, if
that differs from the enrollment goals stated in the approved
application, the reasons. The reports of anticipated enrollment will be
due at the end of April of each project year.
(8) Each TPDP project must submit annual project performance
reports and a final project performance report. Both the annual and
final performance reports must summarize the TPDP project's progress
and significant accomplishments, with respect to both the process of
implementation and the outcomes of student participation; provide data
regarding enrollment, persistence, and program completion for each
student cohort; identify barriers to continued progress and outline
[[Page 25473]]
solutions; include a progress report on and an analysis of the findings
of the project evaluation; and review prospects for sustained
operations after the cessation of Federal support. The annual and final
performance reports will be due within 90 days of the end of each
project year and of the end of the project, respectively.
Funded projects will be required to comply with all requirements
adopted in this notice. Failure to comply with any applicable program
requirement may subject a grantee to special conditions, withholding,
or termination.
Allowable Costs
Allowable activities and expenditures for TPDP projects include,
but are not limited to: Recruitment and enrollment of students; staff
hiring; updating of articulation agreements; curriculum revision;
professional development for secondary and postsecondary faculty,
counselors, and administrators; and development and maintenance of
business and industry partnerships. In addition, section 207(b)(2)
specifies that TPDP projects may provide summer internships at a
business for students or teachers.
Section 207 gives applicants latitude for innovation. For example,
although tech-prep education by definition includes at least two years
of education at the secondary level preceding high school graduation
and two years of postsecondary education or apprenticeship training,
section 204(c)(3)(B) authorizes tech-prep programs that allow students
to concurrently complete both secondary and postsecondary courses, and
simultaneously satisfy requirements for a high school diploma and an
associate degree or other postsecondary credential.
Unallowable Costs
(1) Supplanting. In accordance with section 311(a) of Perkins III,
funds under this program may not be used to supplant non-Federal funds
used to carry out vocational and technical education activities and
tech-prep activities. Further, the prohibition against supplanting also
means that grantees are required to use their negotiated restricted
indirect cost rate under this program. (34 CFR 75.563.)
Because of the statutory prohibition against supplanting, we
caution applicants not to plan to use Federal funds awarded under
section 207 to replace non-Federal funding that is already, or that
otherwise would be, available for support of the TPDP projects to be
assisted. Further, we are concerned that TPDP funds may be used to
replace Federal student financial aid. We wish to highlight the fact
that the statute does not authorize us to fund projects that serve
primarily as entities through which students may apply for and receive
tuition and other financial assistance.
(2) Construction. Under EDGAR (34 CFR 75.533), TPDP grants cannot
be used for the acquisition of real property or construction.
(3) Articulation Agreements with Four-Year Institutions. Under the
provisions of section 207(d), tech-prep articulation agreements with
four-year institutions cannot be supported with funds awarded under
section 207. However, articulation agreements with four-year
institutions can be developed using other resources by applicants who
wish to establish ``open-ended'' tech-prep career pathways. Also, the
inclusion of institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate
degrees in TPDP consortia is allowable under section 204(a)(2)(A).
Special Considerations
In addition to the points to be awarded to applicants based on the
selection criteria and Priorities 1-3, under section 207(d)(3) of
Perkins III, we award five additional points to applications that:
(1) Provide for effective employment placement activities;
(2) Effectively address the issues of school dropout prevention and
reentry, as well as the needs of special populations;
(3) Provide education and training in career areas or skills in
which there are significant workforce shortages, including the
information technology industry; and
(4) Demonstrate how tech-prep programs will help students meet high
academic and employability competencies.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities, we
invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register. (A
notice inviting applications under this program is published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.) When inviting
applications, we designate each priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational. The effect of each type of priority
follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority we give competitive preference to an application by either
(1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent
to which the application meets the competitive preference priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i); or (2) selecting an application that meets
the competitive priority over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over
other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Priorities
Priority 1
Under this priority, we will give competitive preference by
awarding up to five additional points to applications that: (a) Require
all secondary teachers teaching core academic subjects to be highly
qualified, as such term is defined by section 9101(23) of the ESEA, as
amended by NCLB; and (b) require all postsecondary teachers teaching
core academic subjects to meet State standards for community college
faculty.
Note: ESEA defines the term ``core academic subjects'' as
English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign
languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and
geography.
Priority 2
Under this priority, we will give competitive preference by
awarding up to five additional points to applications that require each
participating student, as a condition of high school graduation, to
pass at least one high school-level test (either a comprehensive test
covering a variety of courses in a subject area or a high school end-
of-course test) in each of English or language arts, mathematics, and
science. To receive any points under this priority, applicants must
describe their specific high school graduation requirements.
Priority 3
Under this priority, we will give competitive preference by
awarding up to five additional points to applications that offer the
proposed TPDP project as an additional alternative for students
attending high schools that have not met adequate yearly progress (AYP)
for two or more consecutive years, as defined by section 1111 of the
ESEA, as amended by NCLB, and 34 CFR 200.13. To receive any points
under this priority, applicants must: (a) Provide evidence that at
least one high school served by a consortium member (under 204(a)(1)(A)
of Perkins III) has not met AYP for at least two consecutive years; and
(b) provide an assurance that eligible students that are transferring
[[Page 25474]]
from this high school will be given a genuine opportunity to enroll in
the TPDP project.
Note: Each State published a list of ``school improvement''
schools for the 2001-02 school year last summer or early fall. Based
on the transition language in the ESEA, these schools are also in
school improvement for the 2002-03 school year. Applications from
consortia that have a member (under 204(a)(1)(A) of Perkins III)
serving at least one school on the list for the 2002-03 school year,
will be eligible for a competitive preference under Priority 3.
Selection Criteria
We establish the following selection criteria to evaluate
applications for new grants under this year's competition and perhaps
subsequent competitions. The maximum score for all of the following
criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion and sub-
criterion is indicated in parentheses.
(a) Quality of the project design. (40 points)
In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project,
we consider the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates its readiness to
implement a complete, career-oriented, four-year program of study, as
evidenced by a formal articulation agreement concerning the structure,
content and sequence of all academic and technical courses to be
offered in the proposed tech-prep program and, if applicable, the
conditions under which dual credit will be awarded. (8 points)
(2) The extent to which the proposed instructional program will
meet high academic standards that equal or exceed those established by
the State. (4 points)
(3) The extent to which the applicant has aligned its secondary
academic and technical course offerings and requirements for program
completion with the entrance requirements for the corresponding
postsecondary degree or certificate program. (4 points)
(4) The extent to which the applicant presents a detailed student
recruitment plan that is likely to be effective in fulfilling the
project's enrollment goals for each year of the project. (8 points)
(5) The extent to which the proposed project will provide
comprehensive academic and career counseling and other support services
to participating students at both the secondary and postsecondary
levels, to ensure their persistence in the program and attainment of a
postsecondary degree or certificate. (8 points)
(6) The extent to which the proposed project will provide high-
quality, sustained, and intensive professional development for
instructors, counselors, and administrators involved in the program. (8
points)
(b) Quality of the management plan. (15 points)
In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed
project, we consider the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the management plan outlines specific,
measurable goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the
proposed project. (5 points)
(2) The extent to which the management plan assigns responsibility
for the accomplishment of project tasks to specific project personnel,
and provides timelines for the accomplishment of project tasks. (5
points)
(3) The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director and other key personnel are appropriate and adequate to
achieve the objectives of the proposed project. (5 points)
(c) Quality of project personnel. (15 points)
In determining the quality of project personnel, we consider the
following factors:
(1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for
employment from members of groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or
disability. (5 points)
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director. (5 points)
(3) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of key project personnel, including teachers, counselors,
administrators, and project consultants. (5 points)
(d) Adequacy of resources. (10 points)
In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project,
we consider the following factors:
(1) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the participating institutions. (5
points)
(2) The extent to which the budget is adequate and costs are
reasonable in relation to the objectives and design of the proposed
project. (5 points)
(e) Quality of the project evaluation. (20 points)
In determining the quality of the evaluation, we consider the
following factors:
(1) The extent to which the application presents a feasible,
credible plan for project evaluation and includes: the type of design
to be used; outcomes to be examined; and how participants will be
assigned to the program or matched for comparison to non-program
participants. (10 points)
(2) The extent to which the evaluation will provide reports or
other documents at appropriate intervals to be used for continuous
program improvement. (4 points)
(3) The extent to which the proposed evaluation will be conducted
by an independent evaluator with the necessary background and technical
expertise to carry out the evaluation. (6 points)
Note: With points awarded under ``Special Considerations,''
Priorities 1-3, and the selection criteria an application may
receive a maximum of 120 points.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
Order is to foster intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive Order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 74-79.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.353.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 2376.
Dated: May 7, 2003.
Carol D'Amico,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 03-11900 Filed 5-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P